arXiv:2511.18369cs.CLcs.CY2025-11被引 1

研究假新闻传播的少数群体与对话中的批判距离机制

Tu crois que c'est vrai ? Diversite des regimes d'enonciation face aux fake news et mecanismes d'autoregulation conversationnelle

  • 分析社交媒体中用户对假新闻的多样化反应方式
  • 假新闻主要由高度政治化用户传播,影响议程设置
  • 多数用户采用谨慎表达或打断式反驳,难形成有效对话

本论文探讨两个悖论:(1)为何实证研究发现假新闻在社交媒体信息中占比极小,尽管缺乏编辑控制或新闻规范;(2)为何政治极化加剧,但用户似乎并不特别容易接受假新闻。为此,在推特和脸书上开展了两项互补研究,结合数字痕迹的定量分析、在线观察与访谈,采用混合方法设计,避免将用户简化为对已识别假新闻的单一反应,而是考察不同互动情境下(线上与线下)的多样化实践,并记录社会人口特征。第一项研究绘制了法国推特圈中至少分享过一条被事实核查标记为假新闻的用户图谱。第二项研究使用脸书用户标记的语料库,分析对认知状态不确定陈述的反应。三项主要发现:第一,假新闻传播集中于少数用户,他们不更缺乏教育或认知能力,反而更政治化且更批判制度;因活跃度高、分享频繁,可主导其政治阵营的议程设定。第二,受试者可根据社会位置和互动规范,采取不同形式的批判性距离——如话语谨慎(prudence énonciative)或表达异议/纠正的干预(points d'arrêt)。第三,这些批判形式极少促成真正的审议对话或对抗性多元主义,而常导致一小部分高度活跃用户之间的无效对话。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

This thesis addresses two paradoxes: (1) why empirical studies find that fake news represent only a small share of the information consulted and shared on social media despite the absence of editorial control or journalistic norms, and (2) how political polarization has intensified even though users do not appear especially receptive to fake news. To investigate these issues, two complementary studies were carried out on Twitter and Facebook, combining quantitative analyses of digital traces with online observation and interviews. This mixed-methods design avoids reducing users to single reactions to identified fake items and instead examines the variety of practices across different interactional situations, online and offline, while recording socio-demographic traits. The first study mapped users who shared at least one item labeled fake by fact-checkers in the French Twittersphere. The second used a corpus of items flagged by Facebook users to study reactions to statements whose epistemic status is uncertain. Three main findings emerge. First, sharing fake news is concentrated among a limited group of users who are not less educated or cognitively disadvantaged but are more politicized and critical of institutions; owing to their high activity and prolific sharing, they can help set the agenda for their political camp. Second, exposed users can deploy varying forms of critical distance depending on their social position and the interactional norms of the situations they inhabit: either discursive caution (prudence énonciative) or interventions ('points d'arrêt') that express disagreement or corrections. Third, these forms of critical distance seldom yield genuine deliberative debates or agonistic pluralism; rather, they often produce dialogues of the deaf among a small, particularly active minority.

假新闻社交媒体认知距离政治极化

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。